AUG U S T 2 017

IDENTIFYING AND ADDRESSING THE PUBLIC

HEALTH RISKS OF SPLASH PARKS
Photo by: Cpl. William Jackson (Public Domain) Playing with a watergun at the
Combat Center’s Splash Park, MCAGCC Twentynine Palms, Calif., May 8, 2013.

KEY MESSAGES
• Recirculating splash parks have caused several large
gastrointestinal outbreaks in recent years.
a)
• Outbreaks are typically linked to failure of the chlorination/
filtration systems and/or lack of secondary disinfection,
such as ultraviolet light, but may also derive from user
behaviour as well as design and operating conditions.
• This document reviews the literature to identify design,
hygiene, and operational best practices that are thought to
reduce the risk of critical disinfection failures.

Introduction
To Waste From Potable
Splash parks, also known as splash pads, spray parks, or wet (E.g., storm sewer) Supply
decks, have gained in popularity over the last decade. These
interactive parks are artificially created depressions or basins
into which water is sprayed, splashed or poured onto visitors; b)
water is not permitted to accumulate, but instead drains
immediately out of the play area.1,2 Splash parks may take
one of two basic designs, which influences the associated
public health risks. Non-recirculating or flow-through parks
discharge the water directly to waste and present a relatively
low risk to their users as the design is based on using fresh
potable water (Figure 1a). In contrast, recirculating parks
collect water in an underground tank, apply some form of
water treatment, and re-use the water again (Figure 1b). This Treatment
presents an increased risk of contamination and disease
Storage Tank
transmission that can be mitigated through proper design
and operation.
Figure 1. Depiction of a) a non-recirculating system in
The objective of this document is to identify risks to public which potable water is used once and then discharged
health posed by splash parks, the factors that contribute to to waste, and b) a recirculating splash park in which
this risk, outline practices that can mitigate these risks, and water is collected, treated and re-used.
summarize the existing regulatory environment for these
facilities (see Appendix A for details on Methods). It focuses
on epidemiological risks rather than physical hazards such
as slip and fall injuries, heat stroke, and foot lacerations.

This document was written by

Chris Russell, Interior Health and
Angela Eykelbosh, National Collaborating Centre for Environmental Health
Table 1. Selected outbreaks associated with splash parks

NUMBER
LOCATION (Year) PATHOGEN IDENTIFIED CONTRIBUTING FACTORS AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
AFFECTED

Cryptosporidium;
FLORIDA (1999) 38 No filtration and inadequate chlorine residual.4
Shigella soni

FLORIDA (2006) Cryptosporidium; Giardia 49 Inadequate chlorination and other operational deficiencies.5

Park was found to be in compliance with operational requirements. No

ILLINOIS (2001) Cryptosporidium 358
secondary disinfection installed.6

BRITISH COLUMBIA
Escherichia coli 10 Improper construction of waste water discharge.7
(2004)

NEW YORK (2005) Cryptosporidium ~4000 No secondary disinfection installed.8

IDAHO (2007) Cryptosporidium 12 No secondary disinfection installed.9

ONTARIO (2013) Cryptosporidium 12 UV light was out of service at time of suspected exposure.10

Evidence of public health risk
Splash parks have been the source of numerous outbreaks
of gastrointestinal illness over the last 20 years in the US and
Canada, and the US Model Aquatic Health Code categorizes
splash parks as an “Increased Risk Aquatic Venue.”3 Selected
outbreaks are summarized in Table 1.
Cryptosporidiosis was the most common cause of splash-
park-associated outbreaks identified in the literature,
which is consistent with past studies of recreational water
outbreaks in which Cryptosporidium and Giardia were found
to be the primary cause of outbreaks in treated recreational
water.11
Cryptosporidium is a protozoan parasite that forms an oocyst
and is resistant to the levels of chlorine typically used in
recreational water for up to several days.12,13 In order to kill or
deactivate Cryptosporidium, treatment methods in addition
to chlorine are required, for example ultraviolet (UV) light.
This was demonstrated during the 2001 Illinois outbreak, in
which 358 people became ill, despite satisfactory operation
of the park’s chlorination system.6
In addition to Cryptosporidium, water quality analyses carried
out at 29 splash parks in Tennessee found that 21% of water
samples taken were positive for other indicators of fecal or
environmental contamination.14 This study was carried out
in response to a salmonellosis outbreak associated with a
Tennessee spray park in 2014. The majority of parks (n = 24)
analyzed were recirculating systems, and 33% (8) of these
tested positive for Giardia, E. coli, Salmonella, or norovirus
(among other indicators). None of the samples from the
non-recirculating parks (n = 5) analyzed tested positive for
pathogenic indicators.14
In addition to gastrointestinal illness, there is also the
potential of contracting a respiratory illness such as
Legionellosis, due to the fact that users may be exposed to
aerosolized droplets produced by spray features.1,15 While
a literature review did not identify cases of Legionellosis
linked specifically to splash parks, there have been several
documented cases linked to decorative fountains, which
also recirculate and spray water.16,17 Although not the focus
of this document, splash parks are also a source of abrasion
and impact injuries18 and have the potential to cause eye
injuries if spray features are not designed correctly.19
Factors that contribute to public health risk
A number of factors increase the risk of an illness or
outbreak associated with splash parks, related to both
user behavior and the design and operation of the park.
Users of splash parks tend to be young and/or diapered
children, which increases the risk of a fecal accident
occurring.8,18 Younger users may also engage in other non-
hygienic behaviours, such as exposing buttocks to spray
features or drinking water directly from spray nozzles,
which can increase the risk of disease transmission.2,8,14,20
In addition to human users, unsecured splash parks may
also be accessed by animals such as dogs, cats, and birds.1
Because splash parks are often unsupervised by park staff,
fecal contamination, whether from human users or animal
activity, may go undetected.5
Splash parks by nature have many areas that remain damp
for prolonged periods, which have been found to contain
higher numbers of microorganisms compared to areas
that are constantly submerged in chlorinated water.18 Large
bather loads relative to volume of water provide increased
opportunity for infected people to transmit infection and
can contribute to increased turbidity, which can affect
disinfection processes.1,8 Splash parks also have reduced
turnover rates compared to swimming pools that recirculate
continuously, even when not in use.21 Finally, the use of
foggers, misters or other spray features that generate a fine
atomized mist increase the risk of exposure to a respiratory
illness, particularly if water quality is not adequately
maintained.1
Best practices in design and operation
A previous water quality survey of 29 recirculating and
non-recirculating spray parks found indicators of fecal or
environmental contamination in 21% of all samples, and
all of those testing positive were recirculating parks.14
Importantly, no significant association was found between
the presence of fecal indicators and factors such as
inadequate chlorination, the availability of hygienic facilities,
or the presence of signage, indicating that no single factor is
responsible for disinfection failures. These results highlight
the importance of assessing spray parks in a comprehensive
manner and addressing risks through safer design and best
practices for operating and use.
When designing a new splash park, a number of features
can be implemented to limit contamination of the splash
park area and its equipment from the outset:
• Siting the park in a location that minimizes potential
sources of dust, debris, and other contamination, as much
as possible. Fencing may also serve to reduce animal
activity as well as debris carried in by foot traffic.
• Installing an appropriately sized reservoir to assist with
dilution and allow for more effective disinfection. The
reservoir should be a minimum of three times the flow rate
of all pumps (e.g., if the flow rate for all pumps is 2,000
gallons per minute, the reservoir should be 6,000 gallons.1
This helps minimize the accumulation of disinfection
by-products, assists with maintaining balanced water
chemistry, and reduces the frequency with which the tank
must be drained. The reservoir should be designed to
allow for complete drainage during routine cleaning and
maintenance.
• Including provisions to allow for the constant recirculation
and treatment of water, even when the park is not in use.
This requires the spray features to be supplied from
separate pumps than the filtration and treatment system.
Where this is done, the system should be designed so that
the feature pumps cannot operate when the treatment
pump is not running.1
• Giving consideration to discharging some water from the
reservoir (e.g., to waste, to irrigation) while the park is not
in operation in order to draw in more fresh water.
• Providing adequate filtration, which is necessary to control
turbidity and ensure that disinfection systems function as
intended, typically by maintaining turbidity at less than 3.0
NTU.22
Installing an adequate disinfection system. This may entail
increased levels of chlorine compared to a traditional
swimming pool – many jurisdictions require at least
2.0 ppm.23,24 In addition to traditional pool filtration and
chlorination, a secondary disinfection system (e.g., ultraviolet
light, ozonization or microfiltration) should be incorporated,
as chlorination alone is inadequate to address risks due to
Cryptosporidium and Giardia.20
• Supplying foggers, misters or other atomizing spray
features from a potable water source rather than from
recirculated water.1
Photo by: Kids playing in fountain (stock photo).(pic-a-boo/Getty Images)
There are generally two different ways to supply the reservoir
water to the spray features:
• Full flow filtration: the features and filtration are in series,
so 100% of the water fed to the features comes directly
from the filters/filtration pump.
• Partial filtration: the reservoir is filtered, but a separate
pump draws water from the reservoir and supplies the
features, typically at a much higher flow rate.
It can be costly to install treatment systems that must filter
all of the water intended for the features because this flow
rate is typically much higher than the minimum required to
achieve turnover alone. As a result, parks may be designed to
provide partial filtration. However, in this scenario, the higher
feature flow rate can introduce turbidity at a rate greater
than that which the filters can remove. For this reason, the
ratio of the feature flow rate to treatment flow rate should
not exceed 3:1 in order to ensure that turbidity does not
exceed 3.0 NTU.22
Once in operation, there are a number of best practices that
may serve to decrease the risk of a disinfection failure:
• Daily flushing of the park surface to waste prior to operation
to remove any debris that may have accumulated on the
surface. This will require the installation of direct-to-
waste plumbing and valves to ensure that the water is not
returned to the reservoir.
• Daily inspection for materials such as animal feces and
broken glass can minimize the amount of contamination
that must be removed by the disinfection system and
reduce injuries.
• Regular cleaning to remove debris and disinfect surfaces
using a sanitizer suitable for the material, particularly in
areas that are not adequately sloped to drain.18 Quaternary
ammonia-based sanitizers should not be used as they will
interact with the chlorine used to disinfect the spray water,
resulting in the formation of disinfection byproducts.25
• Where permanent rubber surfaces are used, special care
should be taken to ensure that they are adequately cleaned
and sanitized.18
Finally, a number of educational strategies can be used
to encourage good hygienic practice among splash park
patrons:
• Using signage and providing facilities to encourage
users to take a cleansing shower prior to entering the
park. Similarly, providing washrooms with diaper-change
stations may help to discourage parents from changing
infants and toddlers directly on the spray deck.
• Installing a foot shower that drains to waste (rather than to
the recirculation system) to allow bathers to clean debris
from their feet prior to entering the park.
• Providing signage to discourage users from drinking from
the spray features. Drinking fountains could be provided
as an alternative.
• Having supervision of the park may promote good hygienic
practices, such as showering and diapering away from the
deck, and result in quicker detection and response to fecal
accidents. However, there is some evidence of limited
benefit from an on-site supervisor.2
In addition to the above, communities should carefully
evaluate the costs and benefits of recirculating splash-park
water. Non-recirculating parks present a relatively low risk
to their users. Where water conservation is not a significant
factor and sprayed water can be drained to waste, or where
water that has been used once can be saved and put to
another use (such as irrigation), these options could be
considered as alternatives to recirculation.
Current Regulatory Context
The degree of regulation of splash parks varies from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction. For example, in some provinces,
such as BC and Alberta, splash parks are captured under the
same regulations that govern swimming pools and other
aquatic facilities.26,27 In Ontario, splash parks are considered
non-regulated recreational water facilities, but are still
subject to some oversight by way of a guidance document
that establishes operating procedures for such facilities.28
In others, these parks fall outside the scope of existing
legislation. A similar regulatory context exists in the United
States, where some jurisdictions regulate splash parks, and
others do not.2
While regulatory frameworks that support safe drinking water
have evolved to acknowledge risks from protozoan parasites
such as Cryptosporidium, this is not necessarily the case for
recreational water. For example, in the United States, the US
Environmental Protection Agency requires water supplies to
achieve a 2-log reduction in Cryptosporidium; however, there
is no corresponding requirement for recreational water.8
Likewise, in British Columbia, public water suppliers are
required to achieve a 3-log reduction in Cryptosporidium and
Giardia,29 but there is no such requirement for recreational
water facilities, including splash parks.30
Conclusion
Splash parks offer users a fun and economical recreational
opportunity. Environmental health practitioners can play
a role in ensuring that these facilities are designed and
operated in a way that reduces the risk to park users. There
is an opportunity for public health professionals to work with
municipalities and park owners to implement best practices
at the design stage, to operate and maintain these facilities
in an effective manner, and to encourage hygienic practices
by park users. At the policy level, there is room to strengthen
the existing regulatory context around these parks to better
support practitioners in this role.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of
Michele Wiens (NCCEH), Ralph Stanley (Peel Public Health),
Douglas Sackett (Council of the Model Aquatic Health Code),
Heather Florence (Vancouver Island Health), and Rupert
Benzon (BC Ministry of Health).
References
1.Kebabjian RS. Interactive water fountains: the potential for disaster. J
Environ Health. 2003;66(1):29. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/pubmed/12879577.
2.Nett RJ, Tobin R , Sheehan A, Huang W-T, Baughman A, Carter K. Nonhy-
gienic behavior, knowledge, and attitudes among interactive splash park
visitors. J Environ Health. 2010;73(4):8. Available from: https://www.ncbi.
nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21133310.
3.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Model Aquatic Health Code:
a national model swimming pool and spa code (2nd ed). Washington,
DC: CDC; 2016 Jul. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/mahc/editions/
current.html.
4.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Outbreak of gastroenteritis
associated with an interactive water fountain at a beachside park--Florida,
1999. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2000;49(25):565. Available from:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10921495.
5.Eisenstein L, Bodager D, Ginzl D. Outbreak of giardiasis and cryptosporid-
iosis associated with a neighborhood interactive water fountain--Florida,
2006. J Environ Health. 2008 Oct;71(3):18-22; quiz 49-50. Available from:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18990929.
6.Causer LM, Handzel T, Welch P, Carr M, Culp D, Lucht R, et al. An outbreak
of Cryptosporidium hominis infection at an Illinois recreational waterpark.
Epidemiol Infect. 2006 Feb;134(1):147-56. Available from: https://www.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16409662.
7.Gilbert M, Srour L, Paccagnella A, MacDougall L, Fung J, Nelson E, et
al. An outbreak of Escherichia coli O157: H7 associated with a children’s
water spray park and identified by two rounds of pulsed-field gel electro-
phoresis testing. Can Commun Dis Rep. 2005;31(12):133-40. Available
from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15957232.
8.Clark BT. Cryptosporidiosis: a recreational water threat that hasn’t gone
away. J Environ Health. 2007;69(10):65. Available from: https://www.ncbi.
nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17583299.
9.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Outbreak of cryptosporidio-
sis associated with a splash park-Idaho, 2007. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly
Rep. 2009;58(22):615. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pre-
view/mmwrhtml/mm5822a2.htm.
10.Hopkins J, Hague H, Hudgin G, Ross L, Moore D. An outbreak of
Cryptosporidium at a recreational water park in Niagara Region, Canada.
J Environ Health. 2013;75(9):28-33. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/pubmed/23734529.
11.Craun GF, Calderon RL, Craun MF. Outbreaks associated with rec-
reational water in the United States. Int J Environ Health Res. 2005
Aug;15(4):243-62. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pubmed/16175741.
12.Carpenter C, Fayer R, Trout J, Beach MJ. Chlorine disinfection of
recreational water for Cryptosporidium parvum. Emerg Infect Diseas-
es. 1999;5(4):579. Available from: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/arti-
cle/5/4/99-0425_article.
13.Castor ML, Beach M. Prevention of recreational water illnesses. Preven-
tion. 2004;17(5). Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/pdf/
swimming/pools/prevention-rwi-in-children-slack.pdf.
14.Clayton JL, Miller S, Shepherd C, Dunn JR, Schaffner W, Jones TF. Water
quality survey of splash pads after a waterborne Salmonellosis outbreak
--Tennessee, 2014. J Environ Health. 2017 06;79(10):8-12. Available from:
https://www.neha.org/node/59102.
15.de Man H, Bouwknegt M, van Heijnsbergen E, Leenen EJ, van Knap-
en F, de Roda Husman AM. Health risk assessment for splash parks
that use rainwater as source water. Water Res. 2014 May 01;54:254-
61. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0043135414001201.
16.Palmore TN, Stock F, White M, Bordner M, Michelin A, Bennett JE, et al.
A cluster of cases of nosocomial legionnaires disease linked to a contam-
inated hospital decorative water fountain. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.
2009 Aug;30(8):764-8. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pubmed/19580436.
17.Haupt TE, Heffernan RT, Kazmierczak JJ, Nehls-Lowe H, Rheineck B,
Powell C, et al. An outbreak of Legionnaires disease associated with a
decorative water wall fountain in a hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemi-
ol. 2012 Feb;33(2):185-91. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pubmed/22227989.
18.Davis TL, Standridge JH, Degnan AJ. Bacteriological analysis of indoor
and outdoor water parks in Wisconsin. J Water Health. 2009;7(3):452-63.
Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19491495.
19.Duma SM, Bisplinghoff JA, Senge DM, McNally C, Alphonse VD. Eye
injury risk from water stream impact: biomechanically based design pa-
rameters for water toy and park design. Curr Eye Res. 2012;37(4):279-85.
Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22440159.
20.Bancroft JE, Keifer SB, Keene WE. Shigellosis from an interactive
fountain: implications for regulation. J Environ Health. 2010;73(4):16-20.
Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21133311.
21.Stanley RR. Splash pads and public health. Developing and establishing
regulations for water parks. Pool Spa Market. 2010 Aug:38-44. Available
from: http://www.kenilworth.com/publications/psm/de/201008/pageflip.
html.
22.New York Department of Health. New York State Sanitary Code Subpart
6-3 Recreational aquatic spray grounds. (2006). Available from: https://
www.health.ny.gov/regulations/nycrr/title_10/part_6/subpart_6-3.htm.
23.Indiana State Department of Health. How to shock the pool (chlorinate
to breakpoint). Indianapolis, IN: Environmental Public Health; 2012. Avail-
able from: http://www.in.gov/isdh/files/How_To_Shock_The_Pool.pdf.
24.Government of Western Australia. Aquatic facilities. Water spray/play
ground application, design & operating requirements. Environmental health
guide. East Perth, WA: Government of Western Australia, Department of
Health; 2013. Available from: http://ww2.health.wa.gov.au/~/media/Files/
Corporate/general%20documents/water/PDF/Guidelines-for-water%20
spray-playgroundsV2.ashx.
25.British Columbia Ministry of Health. Guidelines for pool operations
version 2. Victoria, BC: Ministry of Health; 2014 Jun. Available from: http://
www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/air-land-water/pool_opera-
tions_guidelines_jan2014_final.pdf
26.Province of Alberta. Alberta Regulation 293/2006. Public Health Act.
Public Swimming Pools Regulation. Edmonton, AB: Government of Alber-
ta. Available from: http://www.qp.alberta.ca/1266.cfm?page=2014_204.
cfm&leg_type=Regs&display=html.
27.Province of British Columbia. Pool Regulation, BC Reg 223/2015.
Victoria, BC: Government of British Columbia. Available from: http://www.
bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/296_2010.
28.Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Operating procedures
for non-regulated recreational water facilities guidance document. Ottawa,
ON: OMHLTC; 2010. Available from: http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/pro/
programs/publichealth/oph_standards/docs/guidance/guidance_wa-
ter_facilities.pdf.
29.British Columbia Ministry of Health. Drinking water treatment objec-
tives (microbiological) for surface water supplies in British Columbia.
Victoria, BC: Ministry of Health; 2012 Nov. Available from: http://www2.
gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/air-land-water/surfacewater-treat-
ment-objectives.pdf.
30.British Columbia Ministry of Health. Guidelines for pool design version
2. Victoria, BC: Ministry of Health; 2014 Jun. Available from: http://www2.
gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/air-land-water/pool_design_guide-
lines_jan_2014_final.pdf.
Appendix A – Methods

This review was conducted in response to queries from public health practitioners seeking scientific evidence regarding
splash pads and public health risks, including but not limited to Giardia, Legionnaire’s disease, norovirus, and rashes/
irritations. This review also sought information on guidance, regulation, or inspection of splash parks or similar facilities
with fountains or other features not in continuous contact with water.
The information reviewed here includes peer-reviewed academic studies, as well as gray literature from public health
agencies. Dissertations and conference proceedings were excluded. English-language articles were identified by Medline
and CINAHL (EBSCO) and Google Scholar using the following search terms (variants and Boolean operator combinations
thereof):

(“interactive fountain” OR “interactive water fountain” OR “wet deck” OR “water park” OR “waterpark” OR “splash pad”
OR “splash park” OR “wave pool” OR “water features” OR “spray pad” OR “spray park” OR “kiddie pool” OR “water play”
OR “water toy and park” OR “spraypark” OR “splashpark” OR “spray fountain” OR “water sprinkler fountain” OR “aquatic
playground” OR “aquatic facility*”)
AND
(health OR illness OR injuries OR injury OR sanitary OR disease OR Hepatitis OR giardia OR fungal OR fungus OR e-coli
OR legionnaire OR crypto OR shigell* OR fowleri OR amoeba OR norovirus OR bacterium OR irritation OR rash OR
endotoxin)
AND
(rule OR guidance OR guideline OR regulation OR operation OR legislation)

The search results were subjected to title and abstract review to identify relevant documents, which were then subjected
to full-text review. In addition to database searches, documents relevant to the topic were solicited from public health and
industry experts, and drawn from the reference lists of the documents reviewed.

Photo by: Ruth Hartnup - “Spray park at Rocky Point Park” - This file is licensed under the Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0) license.

Permission is granted to reproduce this document in whole, but not in part. Production of this document has been made possible through
a financial contribution from the Public Health Agency of Canada through the National Collaborating Centre for Environmental Health.

© National Collaborating Centre for Environmental Health 2017

200-601 West Broadway, Vancouver, BC V5Z 4C2
Tel: 604-829-2551 | Fax: 604-829-2556
contact@ncceh.ca | www.ncceh.ca
ISBN: 978-1-988234-14-4